Our Terrorist Government Screws Us Again

September 11, 1649
One thousand five hundred garrison members and priests are massacred at Drogheda, Ireland, on the orders of Oliver Cromwell after they refuse to surrender to parliamentarian forces. The massacre is part of an attempt to end the Irish rebellion and persuade other towns to submit.

September 11, 1922
Britain's mandate over Palestine is formally proclaimed, while Arabs declare a day of mourning.

Check out ALEX JONES at http://WWW.INFOWARS.COM. He's excellent alternative news, anti-government. He says CORRUPT governments always do: problem, reaction, solution. He also says there's no way a building could fall so symetrically in 5 seconds like that! He also mentions all the Hollywood war movies we've been seeing so much lately. They were planning this - just like Hitler did to the Germans - for years before they did what they did.

If America is such as Monster Terrorist Regime" and this is %100 our fault why don't you simply leave. I mean who the hell wants to live in a country run by terrorists. Better leave now while your freedom to do so is still in tact. Maybe you should move to Iraq?

I think that we must recognize our priviledge living in America, and not deny our place in the global environement - It isn't even nations that have power let along individuals, its a hidden system driven by mutlinational corporate economics, and imperialist ideology - and yes the US is a part of this - a major force - it's isn't as simple as good vs. evil - the complexities spread far into history, and erupt on our present moment

As long as you're blaming so many people for the attacks, many of whom I disagree with you about, would you at LEAST blame the assholes who actually flew the airplanes into the buildings?

Where's the left's outrage over THAT violence? Either you're anti-war, or you're not. Why do my "fellow" progressives keep giving a pass to the actual people who actually committed horrible acts of violence against their fellow humans?

Could you at least try to muster SOME outrage over the fact that these terrorists have killed thousands of people?

If I see one more article written by the left that starts out with, "The attacks on New York and DC were horrible to be sure, but..." There is no BUT. Maybe our military response is inappropriate, maybe it isn't. Maybe, just maybe, the whole situation is more complicated than a kneejerk leftist OR a kneejerk rightist reaction can handle.

The left must condemn the attacks, actually condemn the attacks, before its claim of a love of peace is to be taken seriously. Using the death of these thousands of people as fodder for yet another droning, self-righteous, shamey-finger-waving anarcho/syndacalist essay is callous, embarassing, and evil.

I find myself at odds with most of my leftist friends in that for once, I'm actually in agreement with those who feel an armed solution is the best course. I'm not happy about it, I wish it wasn't that way, and I'm certainly not going to voice my opinion like the chanting steakheads who treat war like a football game. This reaction in myself surprises me as much as anyone...but I arrived at it after careful and agonizing deliberation. If someone has wrestled with their feelings and come to the conclusion that a non-violent, diplomatic, peaceful response is best, I respect that, too.

Who I don't respect are the people on either side of the issue who made up their minds in a kneejerk fashion without struggling about it. 6 hours after the attack, I was getting some email that wanted to "bomb Afghanistan into a parking lot," and other email screeching about "warmongers in Washington" and how we must avoid war at all costs. It seems like every 18-year old college freshman became an expert in Middle Eastern geopolitics nearly overnight and was perfectly willing to lecture people about the U.S.'s foreign policy while people were still pulling their burning friends and family from collapsing buildings.

This incident for me has pointed to some gaping holes in the left's conscience, its ability to react to real-world problems in a real-world fashion, and its willingness to change its rhetoric to fit new situations. I have a 5 month old baby, and we live in Boston, where it's apparently really easy to live and function as a terrorist. There are people out there who are actively trying to kill him to make a point. If he's lying in his crib dying of anthrax, I just don't think that reading anarcho/syndacalist critiques of American foreign policy is going to seem like much of a solution.
--
Rev. Tim

... is more important than the thousands of babies your tax dollars kill in iraq every year. right? the point is get a fucking sense of urgency, if you perceive the left as apologizing for terrorists, you come off as apologizing for U.S. terrorists. many people living in the united states live off of the wealth and privilege afforded by massacring and enslaving millions worldwide. and what the fuck are you doing about it besides beating the drums of more war?

Thanks for providing an excellent example of the ill-informed kneejerk reaction I'm talking about.

Just because I disagree with you, respectfully, you begin swearing at me and painting me with the broad "beating the drums of war" brush. And then you make the EVER-so-compassionate move of signing your anonymous (read: chickenshit) post as being from my baby. Wow. You sure are qualified to take the moral high ground here. Way to practice what you preach, Captain Peace and Justice. How could I ever question the left's commitment when shining examples like yourself abound to remind me just how firm we stand.

I've worked plenty hard to help get the U.S. to lift the sanctions in Iraq. I've marched, protested, talked to my representatives, written letters and editorials, donated hundreds of dollars, and been committed to ending that horrible piece of American policy. But at the end of the day, my biggest responsibility is indeed to MY child, because he IS my child. I made him, I'm responsible for him, and everything I do has to honor and protect him.

I'm not jumping up and down and waving the flag and singing Lee Greenwood songs. I hate the fact that I don't think the people who would kill me and mine will respond to anything but military action. I wish I could honestly believe that a different tactic would work. But I don't. I think we're on the receiving end of hateful religious fundamentalism that has almost nothing to do with Iraq, Palestine, or anything else you'd like to blame on U.S. policy.

Now if you want to try to change my mind, have at it. But here's a tip: don't call me names, don't swear at me, and don't assume that I fit into your easy little compartments.

And sign your name next time.
--
Rev. Tim

and, rev. tim, if you want to work with people without coming off as completely condescending, you should begin by not telling people how to talk.

i can say things however the fuck it seems to me.

my point, whether you can bear the profanity or not, is that it is easy for comfortable liberals in the u.s. to give up and just give in to fear. this is a fear that is felt worldwide all the time, especially by people you are supposedly in solidarity with. i'm angry because at a time when the world needs the u.s., the american left is failing once again. we all should be scared, we all should be concerned about our children's future and our children's safety right now ... but it should be obvious to people who are left-leaning that a capitalist security state and years of imperialist war isnt going to do much for your goals! this *is* world war 3, but it didnt start on september 11th. now that we are entering into a new psychotic phase of this ongoing conflict, WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? according to you we are going to regress and give in to the drums of war and just HOPE that the bombs dont fall on OUR children.

If America embarks on a war, she should first take the trouble to find out who the enemy is and what their motives are. Without this information, it is impossible to wage a war successfully.

Let me make this absolutely clear, because this point has been overlooked this whole time, and it is vitally important:

PEOPLE DO NOT FLY AIRCRAFT INTO BUILDINGS JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT. THEY HAVE A *VERY* GOOD REASON.

What is the reason? The 22 countries America has bombed since the end of WW2? The 11 countries America has invaded during that time? The dozen or so countries in which America has sponsored civil wars, coups and assassinations? All this for economic or political gain.

It may be hard for America's deliberately misinformed masses to accept this, but their country has killed many tens of millions of people all over the world in the last 56 years, and the bodycount rises by many hundreds daily. What happened to America on September 11 was very high-profile, but on the scale of what America has done to so many others, it was merely a minor counter-attack.

I know that this is hard to swallow, but you have to accept this before you begin a wider war, for if you fail to do so, there will be many more such events, and you will surely lose. You may bomb their villages, but they know where your cities are.

Anarchist,

I can bear the swearing; I just wanted you to know that if you're hoping to get people on your side, your arguments are going to have to be a little more compelling than a quick "fuck you" penned under an anonymous name.

Right now it looks like 90% of America is in favor of military action. I happen to be among them.

It's the first time in my life I can recall being on this side, and I'm not crazy about it. I'm certainly not "beating the drums of war." My attitude, I think, is best summed up by this selection from the Tao Te Ching:

Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them.
Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value. If the peace has been shattered, how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm. Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men?
He enters a battle gravely, with sorrow and with great compassion, as if he were attending a funeral.
31, Tao Te Ching

Of course I would love it if this whole episode gave Americans the impetus to realize the consequences our foreign policy and economic way of life have. I would love it if because of all this, we addressed some of the root causes of inequity that causes terrorism. But in addition to that, we are in the middle of being attacked, right now. Directly. And while we're taking stock of our role in the world's problems, we have a moral and legal right to defend ourselves. If you can tell me a solution that both helps the U.S. take a more active role in spreading peace and justice in the world AND helps protect its citizens from future attacks, I am all ears.

I am all FUCKING ears. You can complain about stuff great...now what ideas are you offering to help change things? Do you have any solutions, or are you just going to put on a black sweatshirt, smoke pot, and sit around a dorm room preaching to the choir?

--
Rev. Tim

your argument is based in nationalism. *we* are being attacked. if *we* is americans, i guess i can see your point of view. to me, *we* is the lower classes, the disrespected and oppressed populations of the world, and from that viewpoint, *we* have been under attack since i was born.

now is the time when fair-weather liberals show that they know who butters *their* bread, who protects *their* children, and who their loyalties and solidarities ultimately fall with.

as for your solution, i would suggest committing to social justice or quit calling yourself part of what this is about. what should we do? make serious organization a reality in the U.S., start shutting down cities and threatening the political legitimacy of these mass murderers. THAT is what needs to happen. writing letters, holding signs, pining away for mass media coverage does NOTHING. the tactics of the 60s wont work today. we need to show the world and this government that the PEOPLE of this country arent going to take this shit anymore.

that will be the first step towards true world peace.

Anarchist,

I see your point about defining ourselves more broadly than by nation...but part of why it's easy in this case to define "us" as "Americans" is because the people who are attacking us are defining "us" as Americans. It's our nationality that makes us a target, justified or not. At least admit that our attackers are engaging in nationalism as well, though I think it's a moot point.

This is not a battle of nationalism, nor is it a battle over imperialism. This, from everything I've read, is a battle based mostly on religious intolerance. Osama bin Laden wants to kill non-Muslims. He's cut from the same hateful fundamentalist cloth as the Fred Phelpses and Jerry Falwells of the world. It's wrong when they perpetuate religious hatred, and it's wrong when bin Laden et al perpetuate religious hatred. It's exponentially worse when they blow people up and kill them because of it.

Somebody in the world just gave a baby anthrax. Any outrage at all over that?

Again...can someone offer a concrete solution to this problem other than a military one that will actually work? I, too, wish for a world where people aren't exploited and where the wealth is more equitably distributed and where intolerance is eradicated. But those are wishes, and wishes don't stop suicide bombers. Will someone, anyone, offer up a plausible, effective solution for the immediate problems we face?

--
Rev. Tim

Since when does it make one "fair weather" to reluctantly disagree with the pack? It's called thinking for one's self...I find it to be a much more satisfactory way to live than blindly embracing every left-wing cause that comes down the pike.

This whole affair has really exposed, for me, some fundamental weaknesses and some painful realities about the American left. Although I remain committed to plenty of issues where I feel the agenda of social justice can be furthered, I am seriously starting to doubt whether the movement as it currently exists will ever succeed in accomplishing anything it purports to seek.

For example...the whole "U.S. is the real terrorist" school of thought. Even if you think that, does anyone REALLY think you're going to attract people to the cause of preventing this war by hollering that in the street? When you've got an overwhelming majority of people in this country (incidentally, when it's around 85 to 90 percent, that's the "people" you're supposedly speaking for) in favor of this action, it's going to take smarter and more realistic tactics to change minds. Which begs the question, is the American left really that concerned with changing anyone's mind? Or is it mostly a collection of people who either want to be "individuals" and pick a political movement the same way they pick out punk rock CDs or people who just want to make themselves feel better by championing social causes?

I've been at the marches where we all screamed, "This is what democracy looks like!" Well, you know what? Right now, with the vast majority of this country in favor of the war, for good or for ill, THAT is what democracy looks like. If you want to change that, you have to convince people that they'd be better served with a different course of action, and to do THAT, it's going to take more than chanting slogans that are so hyperbolic that people automatically ignore them. The movement spends so much time hollering that the mainstream has long since tuned it out...and those are the people you ought to be trying to reach. And if someone disagrees with you, you can't just label them "fair weather" or a "fascist."

I am so disappointed in the American left right now. I'm slowly starting to realize that much of the criticsm leveled against us by our detractors is true. We ARE a pretty closed-minded bunch. We aren't terribly grounded in reality. We don't offer many solutions.

Take to the streets and close down the cities? Do you REALLY think that will EVER happen in either of our lifetimes? Hint: NO! It won't. And if that's the only solution you're bringing to the table, then stick a fork in the movement. It's done.

I am the most reluctant supporter of this war you could hope to meet...if you can't change my mind, then you need to get out of the revolution business.

--
Rev. Tim

Rev Tim, I'm not really out to "change minds" ... yours or anyone else's. I have been disappointed with the left for a long time, and your attitude is basically why.

I just want to point out that during this time of hostile police, today, thousands of people shut down the financial district in Toronto to protest the Harris government, its connection to neoliberalism, etc. Why are Canadians so smart and Americans so stupid?

You deftly try to sidestep your own nationalism. "Oh, *they* perceive us as americans." Who is *they*? Osama bin Laden? CNN characterizations of fundamentalist terrorists? You are taking the East vs. West CNN America/Empire Strikes Back propaganda a little too seriously.

Oh, someone gave anthrax to a baby. I wonder what country manufactured that anthrax. Hint: the two most likely governments are USSR and your USA, your tax dollars.

I'm sorry you feel scared. A lot of us have felt scared for a long time. Having friends who work in southern Mexico and into northern Colombia, I know what that fear is like. The fear of "the U.S. government is sending billions more, is this the start of new massacres".

Face it, Tim. The fundamental problem with U.S. activism is that on an international level, every U.S. activist is benefiting from the system that enslaves millions to keep one small nation rich. We bomb, murder, steal from every culture on the earth. And our leftist community cant even conceive of "shutting it down" ...

I think the realization you need to come to is that World War 3 did not begin on September 11th. It did not begin on the other September 11th, when the USA bombed away in Chile, toppling a democratic government there. It began in 1945, when the USA caused the first and only nuclear holocaust. Since then, we have been told that World War 3 is a "cold war" ... because no *americans* ever died from it. On September 11th, that war became a lot more real to americans.

Some of us who already knew there was a war going on and were serious about stuff and were ready to do what it takes to stop our government before it gets us hurt ... well, we're ready to go. Fair-weather liberals like yourself who never really had a radical critique are ready to run for the flag.

You want my opinion? Good riddance. I dont have all day to sit here and blah blah blah with you about why you shouldn't be such a nationalist. Another problem with the american left. All talk, no rock. Just remember, that for those of us who have been engaged in a class war, you're on the other side of the fence now.

I'm not out to "convince" a pathetic middle-class that can't criticize itself. I'm out to tighten up with people I know feel the same way I do, and just like they shut down Toronto, I know we can shut down our government's military machine before it creates a global holocaust. It is our responsibility. And if you want to keep your children safe, show them that liberation is possible, and quit forcing the american flag down their throat, promising them a sick, blood-soaked "security."

Rev Tim asks critics of America's foreign policies to suggest some solutions for once. Well, in the past, the solutions that were proposed revolved around not using America's military-political muscle to kick the crap out of third world countries. For decades, people all over the world suggested that America should not try to maintain her surly superpower status. Perhaps she could cancel third world debt. Maybe she could reduce her armed forces to a fraction of their current strength. Possibly not establishing and funding dictators, or supporting Israel?

The problem is, as people repeated all those things for decades, they were laughed at. If they were ordinary people, they were called hippies. If they were in official positions of power, they were labelled "liberals" or "socialists" with derision.

Now it could be too late. Probably, if America halved her armed forces and vacated all her overseas bases by the end of the year, and then permanently stayed out of other countries' business, she would successfully make amends. Sure, the US would then be no more powerfull than Russia, Britain, Germany or France, but at least no-one would have any reason to bomb American interests. After all, Britain and France gave up their empires, and no-one bombs them (the Irish being a negligible exception in the case of the former). And the world would gradually become a better place. The idea that there would be a damaging power vacuum is a myth.

And as for America being a target because she is America, that is another myth planted into the minds of the American people in order to make them see the situation in terms of victory or death. In Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the USSR, that thought was used very successfully to make people think of doing nothing but fighting a war. Backing down in a truly monumental fashion really is a practical option, in theory at least.

But realistically, America will have her war, being too conservative and unimaginative to respond in any other way. Just don't expect to win, and leave the rest of the world out of it. Contrary to what the American media says, very few people outside America support your war. Many, in fact, wouldn't care much about the whole business if it weren't for the fact that they are being dragged in.

>Somebody in the world just gave a baby anthrax. Any >outrage at all over that?

America gave radiation poisioning to thousands of babies in Iraq (more are receiving it every day), and used poisionous gas, including nerve gas, regularly on a large scale in civilian-populated areas in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Meat infected with plague, botulism and other unpleasant stuff not unlike anthrax was dropped on North Korea and China in the early 1950s, killing or damaging the health of hundreds of children there. If it wasn't for the media and a slight change in military policy over the years, the pathetic quantity of food being dropped on Afghanistan now could have been booby-trapped and laced with cyanide.

Any outrage over that? Probably not much - somehow it's just not the same when they're not Americans, is it?

To Anarchist:

Once again you reinforce the utter impotence of the left. I ask for real world solutions, and I get diatribes. My problem is not that I never had a "radical critique." My problem, as far as you're concerned, is that I disagree with you. Your reaction to THAT has been as narrow-minded and hateful as the worst right-wing fundamentalist. You're long on righteous indignation and short on reality, kid. You're useless. So go ahead, put on your Che t-shirt and go have a temper tantrum in the street. It won't accomplish anything but it'll sure make you look cool. Ten years from now when you're working in daddy's company, it'll make a great story.

To the various Anonymouses:

Again, I repeat: do you have any real solutions for the very real problem we face now? I don't necessarily agree that the attacks are justified, though I certainly understand other countries' hatred of us. But that, right now, is just intellectual masturbation. We HAVE been bombed. We're going to BE bombed. And whether or not we did the right thing in Japan 56 years ago is totally irrelevant to the problem at hand.

And it's a cheap shot to try to paint me as some sort of flag-waving all-American racist...I've stated, and I keep stating, how difficult it has been for me to arrive at my position. I came here looking for debate and the chance to either clarify and amend my thinking. Instead I get broad-brushing and tunnel vision.

It IS possible to think that the sanctions in Iraq are evil AND that giving a baby anthrax on purpose is evil. And so what who made it? That doesn't absolve the person who used it of their responsiblity for the action.

We don't have the luxury right now of debating whether or not the Gulf War was right (FYI, I don't think it was) or whether our support of Israel is right (FYI, I don't think it is). We can't go back and change anything, so to keep throwing it in my face is counterproductive. Does anyone HONESTLY think that if G.W. went on TV tonight and announced that we were lifting the sanctions in Iraq, insisting that Israel abide by U.N. resolution, and switching to solar power that it would stop our attackers from continuing their jihad? I don't. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why...and calling me a name doesn't count.

What would you do RIGHT NOW to both protect us in the long run (which chaning policy could accomplish) and in the immediate?

--
Rev. Tim

The thing to do now is to make sure that America retains some shred of humanity and decency. In the long term, America will lose the "war" - judging by the military response so far, that is a foregone conlusion. The important question is, is America's occupation of the moral high ground going to be temporary? The way that things are going now, the answer is "yes". If the American authorities want to eradicate terrorism, they should work in partnership with the world's national police forces on an individual basis, rather than give the CIA permission to kill anyone they see fit in secret.